Most Reliable Hosting Company Sites in May 2012

Rank Company site OS Outage
hh:mm:ss
Failed
Req%
DNS Connect First
byte
Total
1 www.cwcs.co.uk Linux 0:00:00 0.003 0.327 0.214 0.337 1.018
2 ReliableServers.com Linux 0:00:00 0.007 0.250 0.081 0.167 0.244
3 iWeb Technologies Linux 0:00:00 0.017 0.116 0.084 0.167 0.167
4 Hosting 4 Less Linux 0:00:00 0.017 0.152 0.094 0.187 0.386
5 Datapipe FreeBSD 0:00:00 0.024 0.174 0.025 0.050 0.076
6 www.choopa.com Linux 0:00:00 0.024 0.203 0.084 0.172 0.246
7 www.catalyst2.com Linux 0:00:00 0.024 0.372 0.097 0.201 0.300
8 www.dinahosting.com Linux 0:00:00 0.024 0.162 0.117 0.234 0.234
9 Qube Managed Services Linux 0:00:00 0.030 0.143 0.100 0.201 0.201
10 www.memset.com Linux 0:00:00 0.037 0.101 0.096 0.192 0.382

See full table

The most reliable hosting company during May was CWCS — a UK-based company offering a variety of web and managed hosting services from their own data centres in Nottingham. Advertising a "100% uptime guarantee" CWCS top the chart for May after responding to all but one request.

ReliableServers.com remains in the top ten for the third month in a row, placing second — 6 places higher than last month. Offering dedicated hosting and colocation from their two New Jersey data centres — located in Newark and North Bergen — ReliableServers.com also guarantees 100% uptime.

Seeing their highest placing this year, iWeb Technologies are May's third most reliable hosting company. Their four data centres in the Montréal area are supplied by 7 different network providers to ensure high reliability.

During May nine out of the ten most reliable companies were using Linux servers with the remaining company, Datapipe, last month's most reliable company, running FreeBSD.

Netcraft measures and makes available the response times of around forty leading hosting providers' sites. The performance measurements are made at fifteen minute intervals from separate points around the internet, and averages are calculated over the immediately preceding 24 hour period.

From a customer's point of view, the percentage of failed requests is more pertinent than outages on hosting companies' own sites, as this gives a pointer to reliability of routing, and this is why we choose to rank our table by fewest failed requests, rather than shortest periods of outage. In the event the number of failed requests are equal then sites are ranked by average connection times.

Information on the measurement process and current measurements is available.